by Bull Dog Pundit @ 1:07 pm. Filed under Blogs
Have a good one everyone. I’m heading to the Jersey Shore for a weekend of debauchery (a/k/a my brother’s bachelor party). Hopefully I’ll be sober enough to write on Monday. And Happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 12:55 pm. Filed under Politics, Congress, News
I don’t thing anybody out there would want to trade places with New York Republican Congressman Vito Fossella right about now. Not only was he popped for DUI recently, but it turns out the woman who came to bail out this married father of 3 after the arrest is the mother of his 3-year old “love child”.
Here’s the thing - when the cops asked him where he was going, he said “to pick up his daughter”. I wonder if that’s what blew the lid off this whole story.
Of course none of this was known previously, and Fossella had to admit the affair and the love child today. And it doesn’t appear his wife is going to go the Mrs. McGreevey or Spitzer route and stand by her man.
You can’t blame her. It would seem that she didn’t know about this (although that’s not been confirmed), and damn, you have to feel really sorry for her and the kids if she didn’t.
I’ll bet Congressman Fossella was in the same shoes as this guy right about now.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 12:31 pm. Filed under Politics, 2008, Culture, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, News
Congratulations Rush. “Operation Chaos” has worked far better that even you could have imagined. Contrary to MSM belief “Operation Chaos” was not about choosing the Democrat party nominee, but rather about keeping the race going and bloodying up the eventual nominee.
And after today’s remarks by Hillary Clinton (which you can listen to here), the intra-party bitterness is going to get worse. In an interview with USA Today Hillary said:
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.
It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
Now, some Obama supporters and others on the left are angry because it appears Hillary is trying to drive an “us against them” wedge within the party. You can see Donna Brazile getting angry about it here, after Paul Begala said you can’t build a winning coalition with “eggheads and African Americans”. Now Begala is a weasely, contemptible little slime, but he’s no dummy. And he’s right.
You know what? Hillary is right as well. Exit polls consistently show that Obama loses badly among white working class voters (i.e. the “bitter” people), also known as “Reagan Democrats”, who are so crucial in the battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia.
The Democrats are in quite a bind here. If Hillary gets the nomination just how angry will the African-Americans and the young voters be? Spitting mad. They won’t vote for McCain, but they won’t vote for her either. And if turnout is down among African Americans, and they don’t vote over 90% for Hillary, then she won’t pick up enough of the white working class vote to make up the difference.
I can just speak for Pennsylvania when I say no Democrat can win here without the white working class vote. And Obama’s not going to get it in places like the Northeast (Allentown, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Bethlehem) or the southwest (Uniontown, Westmoreland County, etc.). It’s not because he’s black - it’s because he’s an out of touch elitist and a proud liberal.
Now look, I’m not saying Hillary is “in touch” or isn’t a “liberal”, but she is far more pragmatic that Obama. And like it or not Rev. Wright’s hate-America radicalism, Bill Ayres, and not wearing the flag-pin matter to many of these folks.
So what’s an undecided “superdelegate” (whose job it is to look out for the party and win the White House) to do? Go with the candidate they think has a better chance to win a national election, which would alienate the very base they rely on for support, and would hurt the party for decades to come, or give it to the guy whose won the most votes, but isn’t best positioned to win in November?
That’s a tough call, but I delight in the fact that they may have to make it.
But really the Dems have no one to blame but themselves for this split. For decades they’ve engaged in identity politics, and now it’s coming home to roost.
In a way it’s ironic that the party who embraced, promoted and shoved political correctness down our throat is going to be prevented from having an honest discussion about race when it comes to whether or not one of their candidates can get enough votes from one racial group or the other.
This will be fun to watch. Pass the popcorn please.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 8:33 am. Filed under Politics, 2008, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Congress, News
I’ll give California superdelegate Steven Ybarra some credit - at least he’s being honest. He’s an undeclared superdelegate and when asked what it would take for Barack or Hillary to get his support he said “Straight Cash, Homey“. Well, not exactly in those Randy Moss-ish words. All he wanted was a cool $20 million.
In a telephone interview Wednesday, he said he plans to remain undecided in the tight contest until “someone shows me the money.”
When will he settle on a candidate?
“Nobody showed me any money yet,” he said.
He’s not kidding. To Ybarra, a Sacramento lawyer, the stakes are no less than winning the presidency in November.
He predicted that as many as 1.3 million Mexican-Americans could be added to voter rolls in New Mexico, Colorado, Florida and other swing states, a potentially decisive edge for the eventual Democratic nominee.
With that investment of funds, Mexican-Americans would realize Democratic leaders “care about us,” Ybarra said, referring to Mexican-Americans.
Is $20 million a lot to ask?
In 2004, “they spent a billion to lose,” he said.
This is rich on so many levels. Apparently Ybarra thinks Mexicans will only think someone cares about them if they give them money, er, “make an investment in them”. Hey pal, wasn’t that what the “Great Society” was all about? How’s that working out for you?
And if you think Ybarra’s name sounds familiar you are right. As we told you a few months ago he lashed out at Hillary’s campaign for firing campaign manager Patty Solis-Doyle, a Latino. He didn’t care that Solis-Doyle will be remembered as an incompetent who ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history. All he cared about is that Solis-Doyle was Hispanic.
But you know what, I was wrong about Steven Ybarra, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Here’s what I wrote about him at the time.
In (Ybarra’s) email you can seen everything that’s wrong with the Democrat mindset, affirmative action, and identity politics in general. No matter that Hillary was supposed to have things wrapped up by now. No matter that despite all the fundraising, the campaign is pretty much broke. Never mind that she’s lost more primaries/caucuses than she’s won. No matter that after tonight Obama has more delegates. No matter that her next victory is likely weeks away. No matter than Obama has huge momentum, having won 6 states in a row very handily. No matter that her campaign strategy is looking to be the worst series of decisions since Charlie Manuel’s pitching changes in the 2007 playoffs.
None of that matters, because to people like Steven Ybarra, who see everything through the prism of race and ethnicity, the only important factor is that a Hispanic was fired/let go/spending time with her family. To Ybarra, the results don’t matter, only the race of the person trying to get them.
I apologize Mr. Ybarra. You don’t see everything through the prism of race. It matters not to you if someone is black, brown, red or yellow. It appears the only color you care about is green. After all, that’s apparently all it takes for you to forgive Senator Clinton for firing a Hispanic.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 1:06 pm. Filed under Economy, Pensions/Social Security, News
As we told you a few months ago, the town of Vallejo, CA (pop. 117,000) was considering filing for bankruptcy. Well, last night they did it. And in the coming years, they’re going to be thought of as “trailblazers”, though certainly not in the way they would have hoped, because what happened in Vallejo last night is just the beginning of what’s going to be happening to other towns across America.
What was it that drove the city into bankruptcy? The gold-plated union contracts that the politicians gave to public employees in past years but failed to fund. Sure, the housing slump hit them hard on the revenue side of the balance sheet, but make no mistake, the main reason for the filing was the financial disaster caused by the bloated labor contracts entered into with the public employee unions.
With hundreds of concerned residents looking on, the Vallejo City Council voted unanimously late Tuesday night to file for bankruptcy, making the city the first of its size to seek protection due to unaffordable labor contracts.
Those supporting the bankruptcy option say the city had no recourse left but to rework expensive labor contracts and forge a budget Vallejo can afford.
The council also met privately Monday night to talk about the mediator-led negotiations, a day after parties met in a last-ditch weekend effort. Those sessions, held over the past two months with independent mediator John Kagel, have, so far, not been fruitful.
City employee union attorney Alan Davis has said a union-hired financial expert has produced two documents contradicting the city’s claims of an enormous deficit.
Davis vowed to release the documents if an agreement were not reached. However, the unions have been unwilling to produce the reports for public review.
It turns out that police and firefighter contracts, including overtime costs, consume over 80% of the city’s budget, yet recent talks with the unions to rework the contracts went nowhere, which led to the filing. And shocking, isn’t it, that the union attorney refused to release his figures to the public to support his position.
And it turns out that Vallejo is likely just the beginning, as several other cities are looking to follow Vallejo’s lead, especially if it means a bankruptcy filing will allow them to dissolve the labor contracts (that’s unknown at this time).
As I’ve said numerous times, the blame for this mess lies mainly on the cowardly politicians who approved these fiscally unsustainable contracts because they feared the unions turning against them and being thrown out of office, as well as the subsequent failure to adequately fund the pensions and health care benefits that were promised. And why did they do that? Simple, because it meant that the money would have to be cut from somewhere, and then they would be criticized from those that lost out on the goodies.
Well, this feel-good dishonesty couldn’t go on forever, and now people are finally starting to take notice of just how badly the government mismanaged the situation, as well as how much the labor contracts of public employees actually costs. Look, anything that wakes up the general public as to this issue is a good thing, because they’ve ignored it for far too long, which has allowed the politicians think they could get away with making promises with money they didn’t have.
But make no mistake, fault also lies with the public employee unions. They consistently claim hardship, when in reality they are much better off than those in the private sector. Then, when someone actually stands up for their bosses (i.e. the taxpayer), they are pillared and refuse to join the real world when it comes to health and retirement benefits.
Rather than look at the taxpayers as “clients”, they look at them as a big, neverending money tree. Not only did they kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, they are angry because there is no more carcass left to pick clean.
A pox on both their houses, but sadly, as always, it is the taxpayer who is going to suffer.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 9:00 am. Filed under Politics, 2008, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, News
I’ve got to run to a meeting soon, but wanted to post on what happens after yesterday’s results. (Actually my predictions ended up being only 2 points off the actual spread in both IN and NC). Anyhow, much as I hate to go along with the Conventional Wisdom spouted by the MSM, but I can’t see any conceivable way Hillary Clinton gets the nomination without some sort of “dead girl/live boy” scandal involving Barack Obama, and that just ain’t gonna happen.
I could use every metaphor in the book - “Hail Mary”, “draw to an inside straight”, “rabbit out of the hat” etc. - but it’s even worse than that. Her donors won’t be returning her calls, last night’s results will get some of the undeclared superdelegates who were leaning to Obama off their butts, and party bosses will speak up loudly because what good would it do the party, and especially the nominee, if she stays in the race another week and embarrasses Obama by trouncing him in WV and KY?
This doesn’t mean I necessarily think she’s going down easily. She could try to fight to the end to get the FL and MI delegates seated, which gets her closer in delegates and popular vote, but it still won’t be enough.
The next few days are going to be very interesting, to say the least. After all, would you want to be the one to go to her (and Bill) and tell her it’s time to go? And to the person that does that - just remember to make sure your health and/or life insurance premiums are paid up.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 4:59 pm. Filed under Politics, 2008, Illegal Immigration, John McCain, Law, News, Conservatism, Supreme Court
Today GOP voters, especially conservatives had cause to be a bit schizophrenic, as John McCain reminded them of the things they like about him, as well as the reason why at times, they can’t stand him, and swear they will never vote for him in November.
If, however, you are in that last group, let me give you the “good”, and allow you to ruminiate on why it is necessary that neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton become President.
Today, John McCain gave a major policy speech on the philosophies that will guide him in selecting judges. Our pal Jim Geraghty has a good recap of some parts of the speech.
I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.
And though you wouldn’t always know it from watching the day-to-day affairs of modern Washington, the framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of checks and balances rarely disappoints.
There is one great exception in our day, however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges.
The best part of the speech is when he drew contrasts between himself and Barack and/or Hillary.
Here, too, Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it – and I quote – should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism – come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it – and they see it only in each other.
If McCain wants to win over skeptical conservatives he has to pound this issue relentlessly, because while Presidents come and go, judicial nominees seem to last forever.
Now, it would be a hell of a lot easier for McCain to make his case had he not been involved in the whole “Gang of 14″ affair, which was simply a capitulation at the time the nuclear option was on the table.
But let’s face it folks, you may not trust John McCain to appoint someone in the mold of Roberts or Alito to the Courts (although his actual voting record is solidly conservative in this area), but the simple fact is that if Hillary or Barack become President, you’re going to see clones of Ginsberg and Souter, although they’ll never say it.
That’s one of the things that puzzles me about the Dems. Conservatives have no problem mentioning Alito, Roberts, Scalia or Thomas as examples of the judges they would appoint, but for all the hot air (i.e a “caring heart”, “empathy”, and other such pabulum) about what they are looking for in judges, you never hear them say they would want more Ginsbergs, Souters, or Breyers.
Gee, wonder why that is? Perhaps because it would provide endless fodder for the GOP to attack on issues like private property rights, partial birth abortion, gay marriage, rights for terrorists, affirmative action, and all the rest of the issues that are so unpopular around the country. Just a thought.
However, John McCain also discussed matters that are certainly best left alone if he wants to fire up the GOP base. I speak of course, of the issue of amnesty and illegal immigration.
“It saddens me to see these conflicting approaches toward the issue of illegal immigration because we would not have this problem if the federal government had carried out its responsibilities,” he said.
Um Senator, the problem wasn’t so much that the federal government failed, but rather that you and your amnesty cronies tried to force feed a “shamnesty” bill down our throats, and when the people’s voice was heard, the measure rightly failed.
My advice - stick to talking about securing the borders, and judges, and keep your feelings on amnesty to yourself, because if you don’t, too many conservatives are going to be really angry and stay home. Of course that would be an idiotic and wrong thing to do, but it’s you that has to reach out to them, not the other way around.
Stick with the judge issue. It works much better for you - and you have the added advantage of being absolutely correct in your position, and the American people think so as well.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 8:12 am. Filed under Politics, 2008, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, News
Granted, I called PA almost exactly right, but, well, I do live here. As to NC and IN, I’m going to have to go on gut instinct. I think the time period between PA and about last week was great for her - she got a big win in PA that raised doubts about Obama’s ability to get the white working class vote, Jeremiah Wright didn’t shut up, and Obama was on the ropes trying to explain why he was now throwing Rev. Wright under the bus - when he didn’t a month before - even though Wright said nothing different than he had for the 20 years Obama went to his church (except of course on the days when Wright said all those crazy things).
But then Hillary made a big mistake - the gas-tax holiday pander (which I slammed here) - which reeked of desperation, and even those people who are really being squeezed by the high prices weren’t buying it. Hell, I think the announcement of an REO Speedwagon Reunion Tour would go over better in the nation’s high schools than did Hillary’s brilliant idea.
So anyway, here it goes:
North Carolina:
Obama: 56%
Hillary 44%
There’s just no way she can overcome the large black vote along with those of the guilty white yuppies in the “Research Triangle” region. Obama wins big because there’s not enough “bitter’ voters to make up the difference.
Indiana:
Hillary 52%
Obama 48%
Hillary gets the “bitter” vote, along with those rural whites who she’s been able to carry all along. The black vote in Gary and Indianapolis will make it close, but Obama will fall just short. I think this is a state in which the Rev. Wright controversy really hurts.
Of course, if I’m correct, the race will continue longer. If Hillary loses Indiana, look for some uncommitted superdelegates to come out for Obama, hoping to get Hillary out before the next primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky, where she will certainly win.
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 10:51 pm. Filed under Politics, 2008, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Economy, News
If you want just one example of why the GOP lost in 2006 look no further than this pathetic quote from Florida GOP Governor Charlie Crist, who along with John McCain and Hillary Clinton are floating the utterly idiotic idea of a gas tax “holiday”.
“It’s about trying to serve the people and trying to understand and have caring, compassionate hearts for what they’re dealing with at the kitchen table,” said Mr. Crist, a Republican.
No, Governor, your job is not to have a “compassionate heart”, your job is to do what’s best for your state. Yes, gas prices are high and people are feeling it. But every economist, both from the left and right, think it’s a bad idea that will do no good, and in the long run, cause more harm than good. But what do they care? It’s the “compassionate” thing to do. Look Governor, if you want to act like a Democrat, just change your damn registration already.
It’s also the cowardly thing to do. It’s this same kind of political pandering, and short term thinking that caused states and municipalities to ring up billions of dollars in unfunded pensions and health care costs for government workers. After all, it’s the “right” thing to do, damn the economic consequences. Oh, yeah, and they’re scared to death of the public employee unions.
Most offensive is the blatant pandering of Hillary Clinton on the issue.
“People are hurting. It’s time for a president who’s ready to take action, now.”
No Senator, the time for action was 10 years ago when your husband was President, or anytime since then, when we could’ve opened up ANWR for drilling, or allowed off-shore drilling or other exploration. But no, that would upset your environmental kook buddies wouldn’t it? Or how about the fact that there hasn’t been a damned oil refinery built in this country for over 30 years?
And aren’t higher gas prices what people like you (and sadly, John McCain) want? If the gas prices are high, won’t that cause people to drive less, and stop global warming? Won’t we all buy electric cars, get solar and wind power and other such nonsense? Why then are you all complaining about gas prices? Isn’t it part of the master plan? After all, we’re nowhere near paying as much as they do in Europe, the supposed model of climate change responsibility. So please tell me why this is a problem. Isn’t the whole idea to use less gas? What better way to accomplish the goal than really expensive gas.
Oh yeah, this also gives a great opportunity to bash the “evil” oil companies. How dare they make a profit. But, but, it’s not “fair”. Waaah waaahh. What’s really laughable is Hillary’s plan to pay for such a “holiday” by enacting a “windfall” profits tax on the oil companies. Um, Senator, how exactly is that going to pass? And if you do end up taxing their “exorbitant” profits, wouldn’t it be fair to give them money back in years they lose money, or don’t make as much as you deem “fair”?
And what about the fact that so many of those unions whose support you need own billions of dollars of those “evil” oil companies through their pension funds?
Hey, but what does she care. Like Governor Crist said, it’s about “compassion” and “caring”, damn the consequences.
by Patrick Hynes @ 6:07 am. Filed under TV/Film/Video
Not to be small minded about this, but here is my favorite part of this story in the Economist titled, “American Media: on the Brink”:
THE New York Times once epitomised all that was great about American newspapers; now it symbolises its industry’s deep malaise. The Grey Lady’s circulation is tumbling, down another 3.9% in the latest data from America’s Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC). Its advertising revenues are down, too (12.5% lower in March than a year earlier), as is the share price of its owner, the New York Times Company, up from its January low but still over 20% below what it was last July. On April 29th Standard & Poor’s cut the firm’s debt rating to one notch above junk.
At the company’s annual meeting a week earlier, its embattled publisher, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, attempted to quash rumours that his family is preparing to jettison the firm it has owned since 1896 by declaring that “this company is not for sale.” In an effort to placate his critics, Mr Sulzberger agreed to add to his board representatives of two activist hedge funds with threatening names, Firebrand and Harbinger. Carnage is expected soon on the editorial floors of the shiny new Times headquarters, as dozens of what were once the safest jobs in journalism are axed, since too few of the staff have accepted a generous offer of voluntary redundancy.
Pick almost any American newspaper company and you can tell a similar story. The ABC reported that for the 530 biggest dailies, average circulation in the past six months was 3.6% lower than in the same period a year earlier; for Sunday papers, it was 4.6% lower. Ad revenues are plunging across the board: by 22.3% at Media General, for example. In 2007 total newspaper revenues fell to $42.2 billion, not to be sniffed at, certainly, but a lot less than the peak of $48.7 billion in 2000.
Dean Barnett has additional glee at the slow-motion suicide of the MSM HERE.
Ed Morrissey has more on the death of another newspaper.
Awarded the biggest buffoon of the week.
